Marco Rubio the creationist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 26, 2011
8,070
0
0
That bears restating.
However when religion is used as an excuse to dance around reality as Rubio has done, real harm is done by perpetrating that falsehoods are possible.

If religious indoctrination were treated like alcohol consumption, these debates wouldn't happen.

Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration. For example: tell an averagely intelligent adult hitherto free of religious brainwashing that somewhere, invisibly, there is a being somewhat like us, with desires, interests, purposes, memories, and emotions of anger, love, vengefulness and jealousy, yet with the negation of such other of our failings as mortality, weakness, corporeality, visibility, limited knowledge and insight; and that this god magically impregnates a mortal woman, who then gives birth to a special being who performs various prodigious feats before departing for heaven. Take your pick of which version of this story to tell: let a King of Heaven impregnate - let's see - Danae or Io or Leda or the Virgin Mary (etc, etc) and let there be resulting heaven-destined progeny (Heracles, Castor and Pollux, Jesus, etc, etc) - or any of the other forms of exactly such tales in Babylonian, Egyptian and other mythologies - then ask which of them he wishes to believe. One can guarantee that such a person would say: none of them.- A. C. Grayling
 

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
430
0
Santiago
Please point out where I contradicted myself. If you mean that there are no observable contradictions to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I understand where you are confused. However, you provided me with a concise explanation of a problem that scientists have with explaining entropy due to the big bang. An apparent problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodyamics!

That new evidence has caused scientists to go back and work on the problem to propose solutions. That is the normal scientific method. Would you inject god to explain the unexplained? You would call it a failure of science while it is only a gap in the current knowledge. There are many examples of gaps in knowledge. Would you inject god into all of them? The physics of an infinitely dense point source containing all matter in the universe might be different than the physics after that matter starts to expand (in what is called the big bang).

Are you doing this on purpose or what????

Here are the facts:

1. The 2nd of thermodynamics "that the entropy of closed systems never decreases, because closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy."

2. The Universe is a closed system.

3. The Big Bang was an event of low entropy - thus observations one and two are in conflict.

4. I have no problem with #1 or #2 so please quit claiming otherwise.

5. I have not proven there is a God by showing this relationship, but rather have proven that God cannot be ruled out as a cause because science has not other explanation.

With regard to previous statements you have made please explain the following:

I am waiting for one where it has not been resolved and don't keep posting that same link where I saw nothing of the kind mentioned so there is no reason to respond until I see that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been violated in a closed system.
 

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
430
0
Santiago
If religious indoctrination were treated like alcohol consumption, these debates wouldn't happen.

What we really need are re-indoctrination camps where people are sent to be taught how to think in a responsible and productive attitude for the benefit of the farm, Manor Farm that is.
 

Lucifer

Silver
Jun 26, 2012
5,054
961
113
Q: How many Christian scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: NONE! You see, God is light.

Q: How many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: They don't screw in lightbulbs; they screw in bathtubs.

-Lucifer
El mancebo no achicopalado
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
44,930
7,361
113
Are you doing this on purpose or what????

Here are the facts:

1. The 2nd of thermodynamics "that the entropy of closed systems never decreases, because closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy."

2. The Universe is a closed system.

3. The Big Bang was an event of low entropy - thus observations one and two are in conflict.

And I responded by saying that the link you presented clearly stated that there was such a conflict.
I then stated that scientists are working on a solution.

4. I have no problem with #1 or #2 so please quit claiming otherwise. Great. We just had misunderstanding on where the discussion was going. Keep in mind Creationists DO have problems understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and use a misinterpretation to discredit evolution. I see now that was not your purpose.

5. I have not proven there is a God by showing this relationship, (Excellent because there is no god) but rather have proven that God cannot be ruled out as a cause because science has not other explanation. - I find that statement while true in and of itself, has no basis in reality since god has never been shown to exist. I could say that I cannot prove that my dog' greatest ancestor did not cause the big bang because there is no proof the big dog didn't cause it.

My view is that I have no use for your hypothesis that god could have played a part, since god is a myth. I have no idea if and when science will have an explanation, but inserting god into the gap will never work for me.

With regard to previous statements you have made please explain the following:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by windeguy
I am waiting for one where it has not been resolved and don't keep posting that same link where I saw nothing of the kind mentioned so there is no reason to respond until I see that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been violated in a closed system.

At last I saw the link regarding the bing bang/entropy issue you were referring to. ( I tried google searching and all I could find were the anti-Darwinists) I acknowledge that there are issues with the big bang theory that need to be worked on and entropy is one of those issues. I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands more issues. Science will study the problem, attempt to work out the details to explain the issues and do this repeatedly to refine the theory using the scientific method. At no time in the process is it necessary to inject god as a possible solution, but I know that is what you feel could be the "ultimate answer". As I mentioned before, I don't believe in your imaginary friend.
 
Last edited:

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,976
945
113
At last I saw the link regarding the bing bang/entropy issue you were referring to. ( I tried google searching and all I could find were the anti-Darwinists) I acknowledge that there are issues with the big bang theory that need to be worked on and entropy is one of those issues. I
In a timeless, infinite universe, what existed before the Big Bang?
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
44,930
7,361
113

Not according to the definition of logic. Now moving on to what could have existed before the big bang:

Q5] Richard Morris: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25)
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Not according to the definition of logic. Now moving on to what could have existed before the big bang:

Q5] Richard Morris: In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25)

1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

You have said yourself, somewhere up there, that other life forms are likely to exist elsewhere in our universe.

Science existed long before humans discovered it.

The other choice is Genesis 1:2 -- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
44,930
7,361
113
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

You have said yourself, somewhere up there, that other life forms are likely to exist elsewhere in our universe.

Science existed long before humans discovered it.

The other choice is Genesis 1:2 -- And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Keeping complete fiction out of this like your reference to Genesis, Cobraboy asked what there was before the big bang and not just about before humans evolved.

Before the big bang, our universe did not yet exist. Hence there were no being using logic, therefor logic did not exist based upon the definition of logic. Your response that logic existed before the big bang, is therefor illogical.
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Keeping complete fiction out of this like your reference to Genesis, Cobraboy asked what there was before the big bang and not just about before humans evolved.

Before the big bang, our universe did not yet exist. Hence there were no being using logic, therefor logic did not exist based upon the definition of logic. Your response that logic existed before the big bang, is therefor illogical.

I'm parsing like you are! You don't believe logic existed before humans were involved, or that science existed before humans were involved, yet you have conceded that there is likely life elsewhere in our universe. Do you think all forms of life not on earth are inferior to ours?

You argument is continuously that you believe in breathing but not in air.

Try again.
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Back to cobraboy's inference, something created the Big Bang. What, or who? Did something come from nothing?
 

cobraboy

Pro-Bono Demolition Hobbyist
Jul 24, 2004
40,976
945
113
Before the big bang, our universe did not yet exist.
Impossible. Something cannot be created out of nothing. It can change form, but matter cannot be created out of non matter, a hydrogen atom cannot be created without electrons, protons and neutrons being assembled...from somewhere. Even subatomic particles came from somewhere.

The Big Bang may explain why galaxies and matter are moving through our little corner of the universe, but it does not explain what came before...unless one thinks time just starts and stops and matter just comes from nothingness.

IMO, the universe is beyond human comprehension. I don't "buy" it, but "God" is as good an explanation as any when you go past the Big Bang...
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Windeguy's pat answer is that scientists are working on it... which means he doesn't know. Definitely not the basis for atheism.
 
Dec 26, 2011
8,070
0
0
Definitely not the basis for atheism.

Ayayay. Atheism means not believing in a Big Dan in the sky. An Allah. A Zeus. A Santa Claus. An Easter Bunny.

If you do not believe in the godship of any particular deity of the many thousands invented by humanity you are atheistic with regards to said deity. Get it?
 

Big Dan

New member
Feb 14, 2009
370
19
0
Ayayay. Atheism means not believing in a Big Dan in the sky. An Allah. A Zeus. A Santa Claus. An Easter Bunny.

If you do not believe in the godship of any particular deity of the many thousands invented by humanity you are atheistic with regards to said deity. Get it?

Pollo, I don't believe you to be an atheist either. If you are, prove it.
 

windeguy

Platinum
Jul 10, 2004
44,930
7,361
113
Impossible. Something cannot be created out of nothing. It can change form, but matter cannot be created out of non matter, a hydrogen atom cannot be created without electrons, protons and neutrons being assembled...from somewhere. Even subatomic particles came from somewhere.

The Big Bang may explain why galaxies and matter are moving through our little corner of the universe, but it does not explain what came before...unless one thinks time just starts and stops and matter just comes from nothingness.

IMO, the universe is beyond human comprehension. I don't "buy" it, but "God" is as good an explanation as any when you go past the Big Bang...

Choose to believe what you want. Quantum mechanics does not agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.